Togs:Im gonna do what I can to keep this post even tempered, but Im raging quite substantially at that comic.I still cannot get my head around this notion that people have that riots start out of nowhere, the areas that riots started in are the poorest areas of the country, areas made poorer by the actions and policies of Mr David Cameron- these people where pushed and pushed ot the very edge where they snapped.So yeah blame the rioters and looters for acting like animals, but dont for one fucking second make out that the blame lands solely with them.

I know right? "The arguments of both the left and the right are too over simplified, so I'm just gonna blame the rioters and nobody else."

It's like they took a half day or something. Or worse, just used the BBC as their sole source of news on this.

I think you guys are taking the comic and the post beneath it too literally. At no point was it said that there's no blame to be assigned elsewhere. The point is, "Yeah, while you guys are sitting there trying to assign blame to my aunt's overly gaming nephews or your strange compulsion to destroy beneficial laws and systems for the less fortunate, there's a guy outside my house who CHOSE to douse all the houses on my street with gasoline and is now preparing to light a match. Do something about him and the others, stop the riot quickly, take preventative measures for future cases, and THEN maybe if you have some time in retrospective, play your game of arbitrary finger-pointing."

Yes, the rioters have been driven to a point where their frustration has turned to anger and their anger to outward acts of aggression. That makes their actions understandable, NOT justifiable. The riot, with the casualties and the property damage and the paranoia, fear, anger and hostility from all sides certainly is not going to make things BETTER for anyone. The rioting is still ongoing, and there are people who a) are still enraged and expressing it in an unproductive way as well as b) people who are merely capitalizing on the chaos because it's convenient.

Desperation brings out the worst in all of us. But how it manifests is a CHOICE. And if it manifests in a detrimental way, there is accountability to be held there. It wouldn't fly if I went and brutally assaulted every last person who made my life miserable, and it certainly isn't going to fly when instead of assaulting those people I opt to destroy the homes of my neighbors and fellow community, a lot of whom are probably experiencing the same thing.

Well, you've saved me a lot of typing anyway.

That makes their actions understandable, NOT justifiable.

This in particular would be the main point here. The rioters have a right to be angry. But what they've done makes them fuckheads, pure and simple.

I think you guys are taking the comic and the post beneath it too literally. At no point was it said that there's no blame to be assigned elsewhere. The point is, "Yeah, while you guys are sitting there trying to assign blame to my aunt's overly gaming nephews or your strange compulsion to destroy beneficial laws and systems for the less fortunate, there's a guy outside my house who CHOSE to douse all the houses on my street with gasoline and is now preparing to light a match. Do something about him and the others, stop the riot quickly, take preventative measures for future cases, and THEN maybe if you have some time in retrospective, play your game of arbitrary finger-pointing."

The worst of the riots have died down now, it's now the time to start looking at why these riots kicked off in the first place. Our out of touch government has already started their finger wagging. 'Gang culture' and the 'moral decay' of our society are being spouted as the sole reason for the violence. If you attempt to express any dissenting view then you're shouted down as trying to support or justify the rioting. Just look at the House of Commons debates on the subject to see what I mean. Anybody who says 'maybe we shouldn't just blame the riotters? Maybe there's more to this' is thought to be defending the riots instead of someone who's just asking a legitimate question.

So I hope you can understand my frustration. The comic just comes across as being rather misinformed. I can see it's point, and I don't entirely disagree. But it seemed like it was trying to offer just as many easy answers as the government is.

It's the easiest thing in the world to write the riotters off as brazen, animalistic savages. Just like it's the easiest thing in the world to blame video game violence, or the moral decay of society, or the government. This is an extremely complicated issue, you can't just write it off as 'see that guy with a cinderblock smashing the window of a shop? Yeah, that guy. He's to blame.' There's a lot more to it than that.

To quote a little from the post below the comic.

In my opinion, people from all over the political spectrum have been handing out the blame to everyone but those who truly deserve it, the rioters themselves.

There are more examples of rioters being blamed and punished for their actions.

Yes, the rioters have been driven to a point where their frustration has turned to anger and their anger to outward acts of aggression. That makes their actions understandable, NOT justifiable. The riot, with the casualties and the property damage and the paranoia, fear, anger and hostility from all sides certainly is not going to make things BETTER for anyone. The rioting is still ongoing, and there are people who a) are still enraged and expressing it in an unproductive way as well as b) people who are merely capitalizing on the chaos because it's convenient.

I agree with you that this level of obscene violence can't be justified. Anybody that participated in the riots needs to be punished. But they need to be punished fairly. I'm concerned that the government wants to heap heftier punishments on to these riots, punishing their families and their communities just because the world happened to take an interest this time.

Also, most of the riotting is under control now. We're now in the stage of trying to repair the damage to stop it from happening again. Hence all the 'arbitrary finger pointing' as we try to find out what's to blame.

Desperation brings out the worst in all of us. But how it manifests is a CHOICE. And if it manifests in a detrimental way, there is accountability to be held there. It wouldn't fly if I went and brutally assaulted every last person who made my life miserable, and it certainly isn't going to fly when instead of assaulting those people I opt to destroy the homes of my neighbors and fellow community, a lot of whom are probably experiencing the same thing.

I kind of see what you mean here. And I agree for the most part. These rioters hijacked a peaceful protest and savaged their own neighbourhoods. They totally shouldn't have done that. They shook things up - but instead of striking a blow for their political beliefs they used the chaos as a way to grab as much swag as possible, and things are only going to get worse for everybody as a consequence.

However - there have been dozens of peaceful protests in this country that have accomplished nothing. I know because I've taken part in a few. We're not even getting listened to. This anger has been simmering for a long time - riots were inevitable. I just wish they'd taken the chance to hit the government rather than the local Asda.

Because it was MY local Asda damnit. That's where I do my booze shopping.

I'm also thinking that since a lot of the riotters were younger people (13-14 or so) a lot of them simply wouldn't know how to target the government. All they could do was lash out blindly.

Is this making sense? I don't know. Kind of suffering one of the worst bouts of writer's block of my life and I'm not nearly as coherent as I would like to be.

No matter where it all stems from, the recent violence in London has nothing whatsoever to do with any kind of valid protest. It doesn't even have anything to do with that criminal being unlawfully shot. It's just about a bunch of people being arseholes.

Imp Emissary:When you break it all down, the only reason this crap is actually happening is one very simple answer.

People suck.

No that's wrong, just a few people suck and ruin it for everyone else. Don't tar us all with the same brush because of the actions of a few idiots, there are about 9 million people in London and just a few thousand rioters in total.

No. People suck. They just suck in different ways. Only some of them riot violently. Others are greedy, hateful, envious or downright ignorant in various other ways. Most are simply apathetic and myopic until things go wrong, and then they swing to the opposite side of the spectrum and become reactionary.

The worst of the riots have died down now, it's now the time to start looking at why these riots kicked off in the first place. Our out of touch government has already started their finger wagging. 'Gang culture' and the 'moral decay' of our society are being spouted as the sole reason for the violence. If you attempt to express any dissenting view then you're shouted down as trying to support or justify the rioting. Just look at the House of Commons debates on the subject to see what I mean. Anybody who says 'maybe we shouldn't just blame the riotters? Maybe there's more to this' is thought to be defending the riots instead of someone who's just asking a legitimate question.

So I hope you can understand my frustration. The comic just comes across as being rather misinformed. I can see it's point, and I don't entirely disagree. But it seemed like it was trying to offer just as many easy answers as the government is.

It's the easiest thing in the world to write the riotters off as brazen, animalistic savages. Just like it's the easiest thing in the world to blame video game violence, or the moral decay of society, or the government. This is an extremely complicated issue, you can't just write it off as 'see that guy with a cinderblock smashing the window of a shop? Yeah, that guy. He's to blame.' There's a lot more to it than that.

What were the racial demographics of the riots? No one seems to be asking that question, probably because they're afraid that they'll be labeled a racist, but it's an important question. I'm a yank and I'm all for immigration. But that's because America is 1) founded on immigrants (except for the unfortunate case of the Native Americans), and 2) there's plenty of room for everyone.

That really isn't the case in Europe, especially the UK. If the rioters are largely immigrant populations and are rioting because their condition is poor, then you clearly need to be more conservative with your immigration policies. If you can't support that many people then don't let them in. Not to mention that you need to preserve your own culture too, you shouldn't be a minority in the country that your ancestors have lived in and fought to protect for thousands of years.

Now if this is just a matter of poverty, then your worries are different, but if the issue has some racial and cultural motivations then you can't just ignore it for the sake of political correctness. A community of immigrants who are isolated racially will be more likely to view the nation and it's government in terms of an "us vs. them" attitude. That isn't good. From what I've heard there was quite a bit of racial tension between blacks and Pakistanis, which also isn't good at all.

You can't let large groups of foreign people segregate themselves off in your country because they will inevitably grow hostile, especially if many of them are there working for minimum wage. Either you have to start granting them more and more benefits to keep them appeased or you'll have to take stricter police measures. Since your economy can't afford to grant these people the benefits they want, I think you should probably let a lot of their visas expire, otherwise you'll have more violence on your hands. It's a shame, but you can't take on other peoples' burdens when your own people are struggling. You'll have to raise taxes and give stimuli to the business sector in order to make up for the loss of cheap labor. But frankly importing tons of foreigners for cheap labor is rather dastardly in the first place, both to your own people who need the jobs, and to the immigrants who are exploited.

Seems to be an equal number of white and black. Most of them UK born. In fact, a lot of the people targeted by rioters were Turkish, Pakistani and Middle Eastern shopkeepers.

No one seems to be asking that question, probably because they're afraid that they'll be labeled a racist, but it's an important question.

Nobody is asking that question because it doesn't need to be asked really. If immigration was as serious a factor as you claim then trust me, we have enough hyper right wing newspapers and pundits over here that would drag it up as a discussion point in every debate.

That really isn't the case in Europe, especially the UK. If the rioters are largely immigrant populations and are rioting because their condition is poor, then you clearly need to be more conservative with your immigration policies. If you can't support that many people then don't let them in. Not to mention that you need to preserve your own culture too, you shouldn't be a minority in the country that your ancestors have lived in and fought to protect for thousands of years.

I'm curious to see if you've ever actually been over to the UK. We aren't in any danger of losing our culture and immigration isn't nearly the problem that the media seems to think it is.

Seems to be an equal number of white and black. Most of them UK born. In fact, a lot of the people targeted by rioters were Turkish, Pakistani and Middle Eastern shopkeepers.

No one seems to be asking that question, probably because they're afraid that they'll be labeled a racist, but it's an important question.

Nobody is asking that question because it doesn't need to be asked really. If immigration was as serious a factor as you claim then trust me, we have enough hyper right wing newspapers and pundits over here that would drag it up as a discussion point in every debate.

That really isn't the case in Europe, especially the UK. If the rioters are largely immigrant populations and are rioting because their condition is poor, then you clearly need to be more conservative with your immigration policies. If you can't support that many people then don't let them in. Not to mention that you need to preserve your own culture too, you shouldn't be a minority in the country that your ancestors have lived in and fought to protect for thousands of years.

I'm curious to see if you've ever actually been over to the UK. We aren't in any danger of losing our culture and immigration isn't nearly the problem that the media seems to think it is.

Have I just been trolled? Seriously.

Not really trolling. I lived in Edinburgh for a year and it didn't seem to be an issue there, but Scotland is a different beast than England. I never claimed that race was the underlying issue, I was just saying that race relations should be one of the things you're looking at. When it comes to riots race is quite often a large contributing factor.

If it is as you say, then race still seems to be an issue, just in the reverse of what I imagined. The indigenous lower class taking out their economic frustrations on immigrants is an extremely common response throughout history. Immigrants make an easy scapegoat. You should have read my post more carefully, because I wasn't blaming the immigrants themselves, I just know that having segregated communities of different races and cultures can become a hotbed of unrest if things aren't going well.

It sounds to me like many of these people have lost their jobs to immigrants and that in combination with loss of benefits like social security has caused a lot of rage. The whole "immigrants taking our jobs" thing is complete nonsense in America because the illegals do backbreaking labor that no sane person would want to do in the first place, like picking berries for instance. The jobs that have been lost have all been caused by outsourcing to countries like India, and the blame for that lies solely on the shoulders of the CEOs who made the decision. I'm not sure how it is in England though, from what I've heard immigrants are actually taking the factory jobs, but that could just be propaganda.

They shouldn't be picking on the immigrant communities. If anything they should have attacked the factory owners and the politicians who want to cut their benefits but refuse to raise taxes.

Imp Emissary:When you break it all down, the only reason this crap is actually happening is one very simple answer.

People suck.

No that's wrong, just a few people suck and ruin it for everyone else. Don't tar us all with the same brush because of the actions of a few idiots, there are about 9 million people in London and just a few thousand rioters in total.

No. People suck. They just suck in different ways. Only some of them riot violently. Others are greedy, hateful, envious or downright ignorant in various other ways. Most are simply apathetic and myopic until things go wrong, and then they swing to the opposite side of the spectrum and become reactionary.

Really? So the person who dedicates much of their life to running a charity for sick children "sucks"? Or the person who takes someone-elses place to die in a concentration camp "sucks"? The person who protests against oppressive regimes at risk to their own life "suck"?

Sure, some people are bad, some are good. That's life and when you grow up a bit more you will realise the benefits of looking on the bright side of life :-)

No that's wrong, just a few people suck and ruin it for everyone else. Don't tar us all with the same brush because of the actions of a few idiots, there are about 9 million people in London and just a few thousand rioters in total.

No. People suck. They just suck in different ways. Only some of them riot violently. Others are greedy, hateful, envious or downright ignorant in various other ways. Most are simply apathetic and myopic until things go wrong, and then they swing to the opposite side of the spectrum and become reactionary.

Really? So the person who dedicates much of their life to running a charity for sick children "sucks"? Or the person who takes someone-elses place to die in a concentration camp "sucks"? The person who protests against oppressive regimes at risk to their own life "suck"?

Sure, some people are bad, some are good. That's life and when you grow up a bit more you will realise the benefits of looking on the bright side of life :-)

Umm... you should realize that: A) I was largely using hyperbole for the sake of humor, B) refusal to criticize average people doesn't help them, C) there's always room for improvement and even self sacrificing people are probably flawed in other ways, and D) the self sacrificing examples you just cited would have to be .01% of the population so they're really the exception that proves the rule.

Read some Nietzsche. He's a perfect example of how you can be a harsh social critic and still look on the bright side of life.

This post is aimed at anyone in Britain who did not vote, use peaceful protests or use anything in their power except violence to get their view across about the state of things yet still have impassioned views on the PM and such.

Quit your whining. You've done nothing to initiate change and were willfully ignorant in thinking that this wasn't coming, after what has happened during EVERY economic downturn whilst they were in power. Hell, look at the miners who had the shit beat out of them who were actually fighting for the right to work.

Now quit blaming each other, go protest and try impeach the daft twat Cameron and vote for a party that actually means something.

Disclaimer: Wall of text and some controversial stuff, I'd appreciate if those who did respond actually took the time to read and understand, thank you.

First things first, I don't entirely disagree with the subject of this Critical Miss, but I do disagree. I've seen a lot of posts on either side in this thread and I would like to respond to them all, but I'll just stick to the main subject.

So anyway, we're supposed to be blaming the rioters themselves right? Especially those who committed murder/manslaughter during the conflict or those who simply took advantage of the chaos and looted for personal greed. This I can and also cannot agree with. I absolutely think those who killed or looted were completely at fault and there is no justification for these actions, but its very dangerous to take the actions of the more general rioters out of context and simply call them "animals" (the comic did not reference this, but several subsequent posts did).

Calling people animals or dehumanizing them in any way is an extremely slippery slope that can lead to very dangerous places, especially if the society is willing to let dehumanizing comments become an acceptable way of referring to certain groups of people such as the rioters.

This argument can lead back to such basic concepts as natural prejudice and even eugenics. What I mean by this is that an argument of a Eugenicist (when there was still such a thing) may be something like "the natural state of a black man is to be a slave, whereas the natural state of a white man is to be a master, this is not only current practice, but biological fact." This argument suggests that Africans were slaves not because they were the victims of conquest and colonialism, but because it was natural for them to be so. They were less human than humans. So leading back to my argument about dehumanization, it is not only simplistic, but also dangerous to dehumanize the rioters as a whole by doing so we assume that those who riot are naturally uncivilized, prone to violence, and need to be ruled with an iron fist (ie., a master-slave relationship). Sound familiar?

Naturally those who did the worst crimes should (and hopefully will) be punished, but as for those who were explosively expressing their rage and fury in response to years of exploitation, prejudice, and hopelessness? They need to be understood on a different level. Logic did not cause these riots and they cannot be viewed through a lens of rational thought, to understand the why we need to be willing to see things on their level or else it can not be truly said that what caused the build up of so many suppressed emotions has been addressed or solved at all.

Concluding my main point, there is no justification for a riot, but there are reasons. These reasons need to be addressed or this will happen again. Not today, not tomorrow, but the cycle will repeat.

Also:George H.W. BushConversely, President Bush argued that the unrest was "purely criminal". Though he acknowledged that the King verdicts were plainly unjust, he maintained that "we simply cannot condone violence as a way of changing the system ... Mob brutality, the total loss of respect for human life was sickeningly sad ... What we saw last night and the night before in Los Angeles is not about civil rights. It's not about the great cause of equality that all Americans must uphold. It's not a message of protest. It's been the brutality of a mob, pure and simple."[59]

19 years and the responses to the riots are virtually identical, I mean you could practically play political Mad Libs with either of these speeches and you'd get the speech that'd be given for NEXT time this happens. The cycle needs to end, and it starts with understanding, not demonizing.

No. People suck. They just suck in different ways. Only some of them riot violently. Others are greedy, hateful, envious or downright ignorant in various other ways. Most are simply apathetic and myopic until things go wrong, and then they swing to the opposite side of the spectrum and become reactionary.

Really? So the person who dedicates much of their life to running a charity for sick children "sucks"? Or the person who takes someone-elses place to die in a concentration camp "sucks"? The person who protests against oppressive regimes at risk to their own life "suck"?

Sure, some people are bad, some are good. That's life and when you grow up a bit more you will realise the benefits of looking on the bright side of life :-)

Umm... you should realize that: A) I was largely using hyperbole for the sake of humor, B) refusal to criticize average people doesn't help them, C) there's always room for improvement and even self sacrificing people are probably flawed in other ways, and D) the self sacrificing examples you just cited would have to be .01% of the population so they're really the exception that proves the rule.

Read some Nietzsche. He's a perfect example of how you can be a harsh social critic and still look on the bright side of life.

Same as I told the other guy, nothing is perfect, that doesn't mean that it sucks though, which is generally used to mean something is overall negative. If you don't mean that, use a different phase next time.

Really? So the person who dedicates much of their life to running a charity for sick children "sucks"? Or the person who takes someone-elses place to die in a concentration camp "sucks"? The person who protests against oppressive regimes at risk to their own life "suck"?

Sure, some people are bad, some are good. That's life and when you grow up a bit more you will realise the benefits of looking on the bright side of life :-)

Umm... you should realize that: A) I was largely using hyperbole for the sake of humor, B) refusal to criticize average people doesn't help them, C) there's always room for improvement and even self sacrificing people are probably flawed in other ways, and D) the self sacrificing examples you just cited would have to be .01% of the population so they're really the exception that proves the rule.

Read some Nietzsche. He's a perfect example of how you can be a harsh social critic and still look on the bright side of life.

Same as I told the other guy, nothing is perfect, that doesn't mean that it sucks though, which is generally used to mean something is overall negative. If you don't mean that, use a different phase next time.

No, as a rule humanity does kinda suck. It's not entirely bad, but it isn't good either. There's a lot of room for improvement. The only acceptable form of optimism is the optimism that takes pleasure in the struggle for self-overcoming. It is an optimism for what we can become, not about what we already are. Everything else is stagnation and wretched contentment.

Umm... you should realize that: A) I was largely using hyperbole for the sake of humor, B) refusal to criticize average people doesn't help them, C) there's always room for improvement and even self sacrificing people are probably flawed in other ways, and D) the self sacrificing examples you just cited would have to be .01% of the population so they're really the exception that proves the rule.

Read some Nietzsche. He's a perfect example of how you can be a harsh social critic and still look on the bright side of life.

Same as I told the other guy, nothing is perfect, that doesn't mean that it sucks though, which is generally used to mean something is overall negative. If you don't mean that, use a different phase next time.

No, as a rule humanity does kinda suck. It's not entirely bad, but it isn't good either. There's a lot of room for improvement. The only acceptable form of optimism is the optimism that takes pleasure in the struggle for self-overcoming. It is an optimism for what we can become, not about what we already are. Everything else is stagnation and wretched contentment.

Sources please. Any evidence that badness isn't limited to a minority of assholes such as the rioters?

Same as I told the other guy, nothing is perfect, that doesn't mean that it sucks though, which is generally used to mean something is overall negative. If you don't mean that, use a different phase next time.

No, as a rule humanity does kinda suck. It's not entirely bad, but it isn't good either. There's a lot of room for improvement. The only acceptable form of optimism is the optimism that takes pleasure in the struggle for self-overcoming. It is an optimism for what we can become, not about what we already are. Everything else is stagnation and wretched contentment.

Sources please. Any evidence that badness isn't limited to a minority of assholes such as the rioters?

You're construing "badness" far too narrowly. Under "badness" I would not only include violent behaviors but also greed, self centered-ness, a lack of critical thinking and a general disposition to uphold the consumption of goods as a more worthy life-goal than acts of intellectual, artistic or physical creation. These are crimes of which the vast majority of mankind is guilty.

uguito-93:Its this kind of situation that has me questioning the value of freedom. Dont get me wrong, its something that i have always seen as an essential human right, but then again it also allows scumbags to start shit like what happened in London. Talk about a double edged sword.

Not really. People just need to learn that there is a time and a place for police brutality. Large scale riots like the one in London are most definatly the correct time and place. You would not believe how fast a riot will stop when you start firing tear gas at them then move in to beat the crap out of everybody with clubs.

"Ralph wept for the end of innocence, the darkness of man's heart, and the fall through the air of the true, wise friend called Piggy."- William Golding, Lord of the Flies, final line... I don't think it's been this relevant in ages.

No, as a rule humanity does kinda suck. It's not entirely bad, but it isn't good either. There's a lot of room for improvement. The only acceptable form of optimism is the optimism that takes pleasure in the struggle for self-overcoming. It is an optimism for what we can become, not about what we already are. Everything else is stagnation and wretched contentment.

Sources please. Any evidence that badness isn't limited to a minority of assholes such as the rioters?

You're construing "badness" far too narrowly. Under "badness" I would not only include violent behaviors but also greed, self centered-ness, a lack of critical thinking and a general disposition to uphold the consumption of goods as a more worthy life-goal than acts of intellectual, artistic or physical creation. These are crimes of which the vast majority of mankind is guilty.

Then I'm afraid we must agree to disagree as I will never accept the "lack of critical thinking" as a crime or badness. People should be allowed to do as they wish as long as they don't infringe on the rights of others, so if they wish to consume rather than create then who are we to stop them?

Plank of Wood:As someone who lives in London, who took part in the street clean-up afterwards and had a few favourite local shops absolutely wrecked I have to say: a lot of you people are talking absolute shite.

I would clarify more, but I don't feel like internet arguing, to be honest.

Sooo... do you think it is because people are angry or just because they're a bunch of retards?

Togs:Im gonna do what I can to keep this post even tempered, but Im raging quite substantially at that comic.I still cannot get my head around this notion that people have that riots start out of nowhere, the areas that riots started in are the poorest areas of the country, areas made poorer by the actions and policies of Mr David Cameron- these people where pushed and pushed ot the very edge where they snapped.So yeah blame the rioters and looters for acting like animals, but dont for one fucking second make out that the blame lands solely with them.

Read the bit under it. Fleshes out his argument, but I agree with the overall sentiment of the comic.

A murderer could kill someone because of societal pressures, poverty, anger at the government, anything. But that doesn't excuse him from the fact that he murdered someone.

But the main thing I'm annoyed about to do with the riots? The fact that they're trying to introduce curfews. They won't affect me personally, but the whole idea of them is just outrageous.

I agree, they're now knee-jerking-off completely in their reactions. First we got the good old "moral degradation" argument (as opposed to what? The heinous amounts of racism, homophobia and sexism in previous decades?), now all the stupid new rules.

National service-esque stuff for all 16-year-olds is another one. A surprisingly large number of the rioters weren't even the people they're completely blaming. Ages of those arrested reportedly ran wildly between those in their late teens to those in their 40s, and across a huge number of professions.

Sources please. Any evidence that badness isn't limited to a minority of assholes such as the rioters?

You're construing "badness" far too narrowly. Under "badness" I would not only include violent behaviors but also greed, self centered-ness, a lack of critical thinking and a general disposition to uphold the consumption of goods as a more worthy life-goal than acts of intellectual, artistic or physical creation. These are crimes of which the vast majority of mankind is guilty.

Then I'm afraid we must agree to disagree as I will never accept the "lack of critical thinking" as a crime or badness. People should be allowed to do as they wish as long as they don't infringe on the rights of others, so if they wish to consume rather than create then who are we to stop them?

I'm not a moral realist, values come down to individual will as far as I see it. So agreeing to disagree is perfectly reasonable. However, I will leave you with this thought: the holocaust couldn't have been perpetrated by a few individuals alone, no matter how bloodthirsty they were. The necessary conditions for the holocaust also included the lack of critical thinking and the downright willful ignorance of the German people. A lesser evil than those who ran the gas chambers to be sure, but still an evil by any reasonable account.

Even deontology, which ignores virtues and vices and merely judges people by their actions, requires that people be rational agents. How could someone possibly be considered a rational agent if they lack an ability to think critically?